Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: Blade_Runner Date: Mar 8, 2010 1:26pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Transcoding, anyone?

The bigger files look better and smoother on larger screen tv with less pixelation. Just my personal opinion.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Moongleam Date: Mar 8, 2010 2:15pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Transcoding, anyone?

These ultra-large files were probably created by one-pass transcoding.

They can probably be reduced in size without loss of quality if two-pass, variable bitrate transcoding is employed, along with video noise-reduction.

Also, a codec that's more efficient than mpeg2 should be able to reduce size with no quality loss.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: elmagno Date: Mar 8, 2010 1:43pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Transcoding, anyone?

I'm right with you on that. Some of these larger files may present definite advantages to the viewer, but then some won't.

Believe me, I'm no expert on this, but a lot of this early stuff is clearly not blu-ray ready. But you are right: more can definitely be better. Case by case, I think.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: guyzilla Date: Mar 8, 2010 10:55pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Transcoding, anyone?

I tend to stick with uploading 700MB DivX files. Those tend to take about five hours to upload with my computer. I hate to think how long a 4GB file would take to upload. Probably days.

This post was modified by guyzilla on 2010-03-09 06:55:52